The only conclusion that I 've been able to draw from this mess is: climate science has been seriously compromised :(
I just cant decide who can be trusted as a source for accurate and unbiased information/opinion.
I just cant decide who can be trusted as a source for accurate and unbiased information/opinion.
Considering the egos of the people who would need to go out and say "when the facts change, I change my mind" to clean up this mess, it could take decades. We're hearing a lot about market failure these years, how's this for government failure?
Govt failure isn't new.
Govt is systemic risk.
When US car companies decided that they didn't want to make the kind of vehicles that I wanted, Toyota was willing to do so.
When the US govt decides to do something dumb, I'm expected to pay for it. And when I point out that it's doing dumb things, I get yelled at by folks who think that I have some obligation to fix the govt that they broke.
Screw that.
> And screw these pointy-headed academics with their sinister hidden agendas, telling businessmen what to do.
If something is such a great idea, spend your money and get rich. Of course, I also expect you to take the loss if you're wrong.
What? You're not willing to risk your money?
Which congress critters do you think can run your life better than you can? Seriously - I want names.
Democracy? Would you choose Congress to run anything
Really? I'll give you a more plausible conclusion: that the scientists in question got tired of responding to repeated Freedom of Information requests from people whose only interest was to disseminate distortions of their findings.
Lets get the data sorted out; not so that we know what to do (that is easy, and almost irrelevant to GW issues - just no one is really bothering....) but so that the politicians can't abuse the figures for their own end.
The climate work, IMO, is about talking a very very close look at how much of an impact we are having - and assessing if our response is enough or if more is required.
But all I see, especially recently, is corruption, money and political manoeuvring on both sides.
EDIT: I disagree with your appraisal of the 2 camps though (I'm guessing you fall into the believers camp). As someone sat in the middle, in frustration, both camps are as bad as the other.
I totally agree with this position. There are numerous benefits to developing better clean air/water standards.
The climate "work" has been on going for decades. The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming is sound.
Their may be some "believers" when it comes to global warming that just take at face value. I'm more of an accepting skeptic. I was skeptical at first that we could 1) Change our climate 2) Predict climate change with any amount of reasonable certainty. Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true.
Sorry, this is my hang up. I understand the science - but the data and methodologies that we know about dont quite follow through for me (sometimes anyway)
The data HAS been sorted out, by people who have spent the better part of their lives studying climatology. And among the group that has spent the most time studying Earth's climate, there is broad consensus that a) Earth's climate is warming and b) increased CO2 levels from human activities is the primary cause.
The great thing about this debate, if you're a lobbyist for industrial groups opposing any action to limit CO2 on financial grounds, is that you don't have to prove all those people wrong. You just have to cloud the issue enough to create the illusion of debate over points a and b. It's the PR equivalent of 'reasonable doubt'.
How do you know the intent of those asking for information? It seems to me that there are plenty of people here on HN that would just like to try their own hand at models. Who gets to decided when a request merits a response?
the scientists in question got tired of responding to repeated Freedom of Information requests
The one who pays the piper calls the tunes. If you're going to build your business (yes, research and universities are businesses) on public funding, then you've got to be prepared to have your customers -- the public -- ask about what you're doing. It seems to me that they ought to have at least an intern dedicated to maintaining a public web site where everything is made available. Then no annoyance to the researchers would occur.
My instinct tells me that we're destroying the planet. The effect of global warming is hard to see, but it's not hard to imagine given all of the other messes we've made.
Seriously, whenever money or prestige is involved, the bad science has a much better chance.
Money and prestige? Really? I wasn't aware climate science was the path to fame and wealth. Do you only trust the poor and obscure?
Phil Jones is famous and was reasonably comfortable tenured professor with a guaranteed steady income, and wielding power over most of the western world with prophecies of doom and gloom. It's unlikely he'll say "I've been wrong for the last 20 years" regardless of what science shows.
There are numerous examples: Read Michael Pollen's NYTimes "Unhappy meals", "Is it all one big fat lie" or Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" on how nutrition science is perverted for profit.
Read about the recent raw milk legislation about how medical science is perverted for profit.
edit: Wanted to say I'm not stating anything about climate research, as I don't know enough about it; just that I don't share the "good science outnumbers bad science" view.